Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Hotline
Companywide layoffs don't immunize an employer
from age discrimination suits
The Third Circuit has ruled that where an employee is able to demonstrate 'implausibilities and inconsistencies' in an employer's justification for his or her layoff, the employer is not entitled to summary judgment in an age discrimination suit, even if the plaintiff's layoff resulted from an overall reduction in force (RIF) and the employer was able to identify certain 'age neutral' determination criteria. Tomasso v. The Boeing Company, No. 04-4657 (April 19).
The plaintiff, an employee with almost 40 years of service, was notified of a possible layoff due to a 20% RIF the company was instituting at his job site. Although he was offered an hourly position, the plaintiff refused, calling the offer a major demotion and 'a slap in the face.' The plaintiff was later laid off at age 59. In his federal age discrimination suit, the plaintiff noted that all of the employees in his department who were selected for layoff were over the age of 40. Further, the plaintiff also disputed the employer's additional factual basis for his layoff. Nevertheless, the district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment. The appeals court reversed.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.